I've asked numerous times about the Citation in Article II where the people, operating through their indicudual States DELEGATED a power they possessed to the Executive to suspend habeas corpus. Silence...as there is none.
I have asked numerous time where in Article II the the people, operating through their individual States DELEGATED a power they possessed to the Executive to issue an arrest warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Taney ( I suspect I'll read something about Ward Hill Lamon not being credible)
And the list can go on and on but I tire of writing it, it's MANY lines long.
This is an issue of the Rule of Law and authority, not opinions about what Madison said about proper construction or intent. Lincoln had ZERO Article II Constitutional authority to do what he did, unless you can point to that section of Article II which no one can. So what do people do when they do not have an actual Constitution argument? Typically, they obfuscate with opinions, citations, in some cases of ONE Framer and present that as ironclad proof that the intent of the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers was "X". Yet, silence when it comes to a shred of Article II authority. Never a cite...just opinion and weaving together fanciful stories about the "real" meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution. Fanciful indeed.
So I will retire from this discussion, for it is not fruitful. I've merely found another group of big-government conservatives cut from Hamilton's clothe who are very comfortable waving the Constitution as a propaganda tool, but hold little fidelity to it.
Unless of course, anyone can point to that section of Article II where Lincoln was DELEGATED a power the the people of their individual States possessed to do the anti-constitutional things he did...crickets.
What you really seem to support, arbitrary power based on Machiavellian narrative about Madison, and the Framers, will someday come back to bite you. Good luck with that.
----
To answer the question of your thread, the Declaration of Independence established the Natural Right the People have to rule themselves.
I don’t hold with unlimited submission to federal government, nor do I hold with unlimited submission to the slave holding minority that made war to secure their horrific investments in slaves.
The southern states had, by ratification of the constitution or by application to join the Union, agreed to settle their disputes with the federal government or other states by legal means, with the supreme court as court of original jurisdiction. When they seized federal property, declared their pretended secession, and opened fire on federal soldiers doing their duty, they violated that agreement, and were in a state of insurrection.
The states delegated in Article III the authority to resolve disputes between states, or disputes with the federal government to the supreme court as original jurisdiction. When they pretended secession, seized federal property, and opened fire on US troops, they were in violation of that section, and hence in insurrection. By law, the president had authority to determine what part of states were in a state of insurrection.
And the rebels lost. Their appeal to the sword, in defiance of law, morals and custom failed.